| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
L&MaC's
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Location: Ittoqqortoormiit
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Australia has also built an internet with one gigabit per second to every home in the country - prices are a little higher than South Korea though.
I don't believe it!!
I have been paying KT Megapass for their highest internet fee (39.900won per month) - for the last 8 years - and my internet is only getting 9.9 MB/s download speed. It sucks!
My school computer gets faster at 93.75 MB/s !
Even if they sell the one gigabit per second internet, doesn't mean you will get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KNet229 wrote: |
youtube is still pretty slow to load, despite the "blazing" speed that we supposedly have now. i'll welcome any improvement though!  |
Won't do anything. The speed from you to the ISP being increased won't help if the limiting factor is the underwater cable.
And Remember bit != byte
8 bits = 1 byte
when it's written little b = bit
big B = byte
1 gigabit/s ~ 125MB/s
minus overhead
Most people have 100Mb connections at home, which would give you a maximum speed of 12.5MB/s
generally if you do speed tests it does them in Bytes and not bits unless you specify otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| jonpurdy wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
More like Intranet.
The speed is only fast when connecting to Korean servers, networks, etc...
We all know how slow youtube or other foreign sites can be.
For the average Korean who doesn't use foreign sites, its good. For others, its frustrating. |
Exactly. Korea needs to improve it's backbone links to places outside of Korea. Even though I'm only on a 12 megabit connection here in Toronto YouTube and other foreign sites seem ridiculously fast compared to when I was in Korea on my 100 megabit connection.
The only thing I was able to max my connection on was torrents. |
Korea can't really do anything about it. They share common international underwater cables.
In order to improve anything they'd have to spend the cash to run their own cable from Korea to the US. Last year that connection was heavily damaged in the Tsunami/earthquake.
Things could be improved by Youtube actually providing in country mirrors of things as they do in a lot of countries. The problem is they don't have Korean youtube servers in Korea. |
Careful, the cables are only part of the problem. The protocol SK uses expects high speed responses, and slows down if it doesn't get them. The problem is US internet speeds.
As for youtube servers, as I recall they HAD Korean servers, but removed them over Korea's silly real name system, which required name registration to get an count. YT thought this was a violation of free speech and has intentionally kept its operations overseas.
I'm sure there's some throttling too, but my only slowdown comes when I get out of work. At non-peak times, I's fine. Smells like limited overseas bandwidth to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ginormousaurus
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Location: 700 Ft. Pulpit
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
Careful, the cables are only part of the problem. The protocol SK uses expects high speed responses, and slows down if it doesn't get them. The problem is US internet speeds.
As for youtube servers, as I recall they HAD Korean servers, but removed them over Korea's silly real name system, which required name registration to get an count. YT thought this was a violation of free speech and has intentionally kept its operations overseas.
I'm sure there's some throttling too, but my only slowdown comes when I get out of work. At non-peak times, I's fine. Smells like limited overseas bandwidth to me. |
Which is funny because google tried to pull the same thing with Google+
The cables are a huge part of the problem because after the earthquake capacity was down to only 25% or something like that. They're also difficult and expensive to repair, I don't know if they've done all the repairs yet or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
Which is funny because google tried to pull the same thing with Google+
|
Good for them, standing up for the little guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
Which is funny because google tried to pull the same thing with Google+
|
Good for them, standing up for the little guy. |
You didn't follow that.. Google owns Youtube. They claimed they couldn't do business in Korea because of the real name thing. When google created Google+ there was a whole big scandal about them insisting people use their real names.
In short, google are hypocrites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Google owns a CRAPLOAD of fiber lines. Basically, google pays nothing for bandwidth.
The internet is a crazy thing. With traditional broadcasting (TV/radio) the larger the audience didn't increase your costs. It costs the same to send out a TV signal to 1 person or 1000.
With the internet, the bigger your audience, the bigger your costs. You don't want to be too successful because then things don't work (servers crash/overloaded, no bandwidth, etc..)
Google, by owning a lot of fiber, gets bandwidth for free. That is HUGE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seems wireless is the wave of the future given the cost, work and maintenance required for land cables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
| Seems wireless is the wave of the future given the cost, work and maintenance required for land cables. |
Not really. It suffers heavily from many outside influences which drive up cost by having to provide better coverage.
Wireless is a great solution in a low population area, out in the country as a last mile kind of thing.
It is not that great in the city. Wimax (Wibro) doesn't do a terrible job, but it's really only an outdoors thing. It has issues penetrating into building, which requires them to run access points into places like subway stations, etc.
Wireless can quickly be overloaded.
half a dozen people start seriously using the access point at the coffee shop and you're not going to be happy with the performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm...well, I'm not a techie so I'll take your word for it. The thing is, I'm not sure if poorer countries like those in Southeast Asia can afford to upgrade their IT infrastructure and such, and thought that WiFi could help reduce the costs of doing that.
The quality and quantity of WiFi in a given country greatly determines my choice of tourist destination because of my work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
Hmm...well, I'm not a techie so I'll take your word for it. The thing is, I'm not sure if poorer countries like those in Southeast Asia can afford to upgrade their IT infrastructure and such, and thought that WiFi could help reduce the costs of doing that.
The quality and quantity of WiFi in a given country greatly determines my choice of tourist destination because of my work. |
In that case it would be wimax and not wifi. Wifi is more for covering a coffee shop, wimax is for covering a city like Seoul does with Wibro.
It can be good in some situations if there isn't high density usage and laying cables are an issue.
It certainly wouldn't replace traditional internet in places like Seoul, Tokyo or New York |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who knows what the future in tech holds? If you asked someone in 1990, even perhaps tech "experts," that something like the Internet would take hold, they probably would be like, "Yeah, right." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonw8uk
Joined: 29 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alwaysgood wrote: |
| 1GB per second... you theoretically could download 75 movies per minute. 3.6TB per hour. |
1 gigabit per second is not the same as 1 gigabyte per second, need to divide it by 8.
0.125 x 60 would give ya 7.5 gigabytes per minute, or 450GB/hour.
Super fast, but in reality you'll never get anywhere near achieving it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if you'll see a corresponding increase in carpal tunnel syndrome and enlarged male forearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
